What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 10 Server application hardening (Very Good)?

Server application inventory for web, email, collaboration and database platforms, with the hardening guide version applied to each; Hardening checklists for web, email, collaboration and database servers based on vendor guidance; Configuration scan results showing unneeded features removed and legacy protocols such as SSLv3 or SMBv1 disabled; Exceptions register for server applications that cannot meet the hardening baseline.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 10?

Default sample applications and admin consoles left installed on web servers

ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents · Preventing Malware Delivery and Execution

`10` Server application hardening (Very Good)

Harden server applications (e.g. web, email, collaboration, database) including removing unneeded features, applying vendor hardening guidance and disabling legacy protocols.

Source: ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents, 10. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents in the compliance library.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

moderate

to go live

Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

Configuration scan results showing unneeded features removed and legacy protocols such as SSLv3 or SMBv1 disabled · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Server application inventory for web, email, collaboration and database platforms, with the hardening guide version applied to each · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Hardening checklists for web, email, collaboration and database servers based on vendor guidance · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Exceptions register for server applications that cannot meet the hardening baseline · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 1 of 4 artefacts that already live in a system (Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Default sample applications and admin consoles left installed on web servers
Legacy protocols kept enabled for a single old client with no retirement date
Hardening applied at build but drifting after later configuration changes

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

09 OS generic exploit mitigation (Excellent) · 11 Operating system hardening (Very Good)